Proposed relocation of Glasgow Gaelic Primary School documentation: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202500496130

You asked for information regarding the proposed relocation of Glasgow Gaelic Primary School in Finnieston, Glasgow.

Response

I have now completed my review of our response to your request for information about the relocation of Glasgow Gaelic Primary School under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Your request was to review the decision to heavily redacted aspects of the response and specifically documents 4 and 11.

Your original request

“I am writing to request information regarding the proposed relocation of Glasgow Gaelic Primary School in Finnieston, Glasgow.

I would be grateful if you could provide the following:

1. All reports, assessments, or feasibility studies conducted in relation to the potential relocation of the school.

2. Correspondence (emails, letters, meeting notes, or memos) between Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, the school itself and any external consultants or stakeholders (e.g parental council representatives) concerning the relocation.

3. Details of any public or parental consultations, including dates, attendance figures, feedback summaries, and outcomes.

4. Projected costs and funding sources related to the relocation, including any budget allocations or financial planning documents.

5. Details of which new location has been chosen, or which locations have been short-listed.

6. Timelines for decision-making, planning, and potential construction or transition phases.”

Your review request

“I would be grateful if you could review the decision to heavily redact the response to aspects of my FOI request, specifically documents No 4 & 11.

The reason for my requesting information about the relocation of Glasgow Gaelic Primary School (BSGG) is that such a move would have a substantial impact on pupils, staff and parents. The aim of this disclosure is not to support or to oppose these plans. It is to be more informed.

Example of impact include:-

Pupils who live locally and currently walk or cycle to school will not longer be able to do this. There is no certainty that new local children will be able to use active transport to get to the new location. Pupils currently benefit from the local environment of the school. School trips have included Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Kelvingrove Park, all of which can be visited by foot (no travel budget). A new location may not have the same cultural benefits.

Staff members may walk or use public transport. They may have bought homes is locations that are convenient to travel to the school in its present location. Moving their place of work may force these staff members to learn to drive or buy a car or to integrate 1-2 hours of rush hour travel time. For lower paid members of staff, it may not be feasible to continue working at BSGG.

Certain parents may need to drop children off at breakfast club, then travel to work promptly. Relocation of the school will completely change travel plans and time. The same is true of Afterschool club at the end of the day. The current school is beside many transport links (motorway, trains, subway, buses, cycle paths). It is likely that no new location will be as well served as Finnieston is.

In refusing to make this disclosure, the Scottish Government have referred to section 30(b), an exemption within the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. However, the Scottish Information Commissioner’s Office guidance states that:
"19. The exemptions in section 30(b) can only be applied where disclosure would, or would be likely to, cause substantial inhibition. There must be at least a significant probability that substantial inhibition would occur in order for the exemption to be appropriately applied. There must be a genuine link between disclosure and inhibition: it cannot simply be a remote or hypothetical possibility."

The resondent from Scottish Government has not demonstrated how disclosure would lead to substantial inhibition. This leads me to believe that the link is at best remote or hypothetical.”

Our response

In undertaking my review I have considered our handling of your request, and would firstly like to apologise for the error in our response letter under the 'Correspondence' heading in which we referenced 30(b)(ii) twice rather than the first reference should have been 30(b)(i) and we did not include an explanation for the application of the exemptions. I have also considered the application of 30(b)(i) and 30(b)(ii) in documents 4, 11 and across all other documents received in our original response.

I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed with modifications as set out below and I am enclosing the updated documents with this letter.

• I have determined that some of the text redacted under section 30(b) within document 1 should be released. Noting that I have adjusted sections that had wrongly been marked as 30(b) but are out of scope.
• The review specifically looked at documents 4 and 11 given they had been heavily redacted. While the application of 30(b) has been upheld in part I have released some of the content within both documents.
• In respect of documents 7, 8 and 9 I have determined that some of the text redacted under section 30(b) should be released.
• Document 10 had exemption 30(b) applied to it wrongly and this should have been section 17(1) of FOISA that was applied as we do not hold the information however it may be useful to note that this is available on Glasgow City council website: Glasgow at Committee Information - View Committee Document .

Therefore, while our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested because an exemption under section 17(1) of FOISA applies to that information. This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested.

For the remainder of the information, I am upholding the decision to withhold some information under sections 30(b)(i) (free and frank provision of advice) and 30 (b)(ii) (free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation).

Section 30(b)(i)

In respect of some Information exempt under sections 30(b)(i) because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice and exchange for the purposes of deliberation, as part of relationships between Ministers and officials which remain vital in supporting exchanges in respect of the future discussions and decisions relating to the relocation of the Glasgow Gaelic Primary School.

In applying the public interest test we recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers and officials a private space within which issues can be explored and refined to enable the Government as a whole to reach a decision that is sound and likely to be effective, particularly while the importance of the advice from these relationships continues to have a bearing on the discussions relating to the relocation of the Glasgow Gaelic Primary School. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice, so that informed decisions can be taken. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Ministers and officials which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision-making process, which would not be in the public interest.

Section 30(b)(ii)

In respect of some information exempt under section 30(b)(ii) because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. This exemption recognises the need for Ministers and officials to have a private space within which to discuss issues and options with external stakeholders before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of these discussions with local authorities and parent bodies will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future, because these stakeholders will be reluctant to provide their views fully and frankly if they believe that those views are likely to be made public, particularly while the discussions in respect of the relocation of the Glasgow Gaelic Primary School are ongoing and decisions have not been taken.

In applying the public interest test we recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers and officials a private space within which to communicate with appropriate external stakeholders as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s position in respect of the relocation of the Glasgow Gaelic Primary School until the Government as a whole can adopt a decision that is sound and likely to be effective. This private space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, so that good decisions can be taken based on fully informed advice and evidence, such as that provided by local authorities, parent bodies and other interested stakeholders with an interest. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between the Scottish Government and these stakeholders, which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision-making process, which would not be in the public interest.

I note from our original response that we did not include an explanation in respect of the application of section 38(1)(b) and am including it now for completeness. An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, i.e. names and contact details, and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI 202600504623 - Information released - Documents

File type

PDF

File size

4.1 MB